Teaching Latin as a Living Language: Reviving Ancient, Medieval, and Renaissance Pedagogy for the Modern Classroom Item Type text; Electronic Thesis Authors Oakes, Daylin L. Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 04/10/2021 04:40:29 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/624153 TEACHING LATIN AS A LIVING LANGUAGE: REVIVING ANCIENT, MEDIEVAL, AND RENAISSANCE PEDAGOGY FOR THE MODERN CLASSROOM by Daylin Oakes ____________________________ Copyright © Daylin Oakes 2017 A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2017 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR The thesis titled Teaching Latin as a Living Language: Reviving Ancient, Medieval, and Renaissance Pedagogy for the Modern Classroom prepared by Daylin Oakes has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for a master’s degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that an accurate acknowledgement of the source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. SIGNED: Daylin Oakes APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR This thesis has been approved on the date shown below: 01 May 2017 Dr. Cynthia White Date Professor of Classics Oakes 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 INTRODUCTION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 CHAPTER ONE: Grammar-Translation vs. Comprehensible Input ----------------------------------------------------- 7 The Current State of Latin Teaching-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 The Natural Approach and Comprehensible Input ----------------------------------------------------------- 11 CHAPTER TWO: A History of Comprehensible Input in Latin Teaching --------------------------------------------- 20 Learning Latin as a Foreign Language in the Ancient World (1st – 4th Centuries CE) ----------------- 20 The Rise of Grammarians and Commentators in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (4th- 10th Centuries CE) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27 The High Middle Ages and Communicative Latin Language Learning (10th-12th Centuries CE) --- 31 The Later Middle Ages and the Rise of the Vernacular (13th-14th Centuries CE) --------------------- 38 The Renaissance Humanists vs. the Practicalities (15th-16th Centuries CE) ---------------------------- 42 CHAPTER THREE: Historically Backed Comprehensible Input Methods in the Modern Classroom --------- 51 A Focus on Sound ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 51 Attention to Bilingual Sense Units -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 52 Early Introduction to Meter ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 54 Grading by Content rather than Grammar --------------------------------------------------------------------- 55 Accepting Learner Language and Non-Classical Vocabulary ----------------------------------------------- 57 A Sample Lesson ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 59 CONCLUSION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 62 APPENDIX A: Resources for Living Latin Pedagogy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 68 APPENDIX B: Relevant Latin Textbooks and Their Methods ---------------------------------------------------------- 69 BIBLIOGRAPHY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 70 Oakes 3 ABSTRACT This thesis considers the history of Latin pedagogy through the lens of the Comprehensible Input Theory of second language acquisition (SLA) developed by Stephen Krashen in the 1980s. It rejects Grammar- Translation pedagogy in favor of Living Latin pedagogy, which prioritizes language acquisition over language learning. Evidence of successful Comprehensible Input pedagogy found in many examples of Latin instruction from history shows the potential to adapt for the modern classroom those historical methods which were oriented towards the acquisition of the Latin language, and these have subsequently been shown to be supported by Krashen’s work. Oakes 4 INTRODUCTION The current pedagogical movement variously called Living Latin, Active Latin, Spoken Latin, Comprehensible Latin, or Comprehensible Input aims to adapt the best practices recommended by second language acquisition research for a Latin classroom.1 When practitioners refer to Latin as a “living language,” they tend to add qualifiers, such as “living but fixed,” which point to the fact that it is Classical Latin (literary Latin as it was in approximately 100 BCE-150 CE)2 that is being taught. Even so, their willingness and eagerness to call Latin “living” come from a desire to see Latin as vital and useful, something meaningful in and of itself. The goal of Living Latin pedagogy is to treat Latin as a real language and use it communicatively, rather than teaching it for the grammar, logic, study skills, or SAT help that are often touted (NCSSFL 2003: 147-49). It will be useful, therefore, to analyze a time when Latin was vital in this way, already no one’s first language, but still the most communicatively powerful second language one could learn.3 Beginning around the first century CE, some teachers of Latin as a second language taught it as a “living but fixed” language.4 In this effort to revive Latin and bring it back into wider communicative use, I will look back at the earliest teachers and those of the periods that followed in an attempt to learn from their pedagogical practices. The aim of this thesis is not to jettison the modern classroom or modern, second language acquisition research-based pedagogy for Latin language learning. Instead, I describe briefly how Latin is 1 While these names signify slightly different methods/theories, the common goal of each is to guide students to acquire Latin rather than learn it. The definition of acquisition will be discussed below (p. 12) as one of the Natural Approach’s five hypotheses for language learning. 2 There is disagreement about the specific dates. This range encompasses the so-called Golden and Silver Ages: Wheelock 2005: xxxiii-xxxvii. 3 See Too and Livingstone 1998 for a variety of essays analyzing the power-dynamics of classical pedagogy in different historical periods. 4 This terminology is borrowed from Leonhardt (2013). His reasoning for this terminology, discussion of the difference between dead and living languages, and the special place of Latin guided this thesis’ use of the term “living”. While the term is usually defined by the existence of native speakers and organic change in a language’s structures, in the “living but fixed” sense, Latin is considered alive so long as it used for active communication and fixed so long as the basic forms and syntax remain unchanging: Leonhardt 2013: 17-20. Owens also considers how “Living Latin” is potentially misleading (2016: 508). Oakes 5 taught currently, how the movement for Living Latin differs from those current methods, and the principles of second language acquisition research supporting that movement. I will then look for evidence of teaching according to these current principles in ancient, medieval, and renaissance practices. Where such evidence is found, this thesis will also attempt to examine some of the successes or difficulties of teaching Latin as a living language according to those methods, and it will also consider the potential results of reviving those practices for a modern classroom. Current formalized research into second language acquisition is not being “conducted using Latin” (Carlon 2013: 108).5 Teachers of Living Latin see results in their own classes (increased participation, matriculation, and skill), but have no formal, Latin-focused research to rely on as a reason for adopting SLA-supported practices. By analyzing the past, this thesis hopes to point out some historic communicative pedagogy successes that are worth trialing in a modern classroom. 5 The relevance of SLA research to Latin teaching is further problematized because “none has considered reading as the primary goal” (Carlon 2013: 112). Although not all teachers agree on a single, primary goal of teaching Latin, the reading goal has held a special prominence since at least the ACL Classical Investigation of 1924,